Comments about ‘George Will: Enforcing diversity at expense of religious rights’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Nov. 3 2011 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
spring street

The Christian Legal Society - and any and all other groups - can enforce whatever rules they want as long as they don't expect funds from those they are excluding to help pay for their activities.

I don't know why that is such a difficult concept.

If you receive public money, the public can put restrictions on you.

Cottonwood Heights, UT

*** "Here, however, is how progressivism limits freedom by abolishing the public-private distinction" ***

The original American model of liberty recognized a right to property that included the right to hire or fire for whatever reason one chose, including based on discrimination. Once government took upon itself the mandate of abolishing racial, ethnic, religious, and gender discrimination (many more categories to be added later) it guaranteed that it eventually would stick its nose into every aspect of our commercial and even private lives; it guaranteed that private property would no longer be truly private in any meaningful sense.

The statutory mandate to abolish private discrimination now supercedes rights explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, including the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and right to property (as when businesses pay many millions in punitive damages for real or alleged discrimination).

Liberty in any meaningful sense of the word is dead. Note that one argument made by no less than the Supreme Court of the United States is that we can't even pass policies to fight illegal immigration because they MIGHT lead to racial discrimination.

Another Perspective
Bountiful, UT

Given that all are sinners, christian organizations are under no christian obligation to single out gays for discrimination. If they want to single out sinfullness, they can still do this, but the school asks that they not single out one type over the other. Seems reasonable.

Clearfield, UT

George Will apparently doesn't get it. If the organization is a private organization, with no support from public funds, it can discriminate all it wants for whatever reason it chooses. But, however, if the organization receives public support, it has to follow the non-discrimination rules of the provider of that public support. That shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp.

Huntsville, UT

Is there any good reason to discrminate other than bigotry?

Will The Christian Legal Society discriminate against Mormons because they're not Christian enough?

I don't find any problems at all with a group that wants to associate with only a certain segment, but as spring street said above, if they want public funds, they should not be allowed to discrminate by refusing membership in their group to anyone. Anyone.

If they want to discriminate against certain segments or groups, then let them do it without public funding, by providing ALL their own funding through private means.

Salt Lake City, UT

The Christian Legal Society or the other "christian" fraternal organizations were not receiving funds from the Government or Vanderbilt University. They are is funded by member's dues. The University mirely provides authorization for it to exist on campus, which authorization it now witholds unless they conform to a set idealogy of the University. Obviously, the ones that do not see the contradiction of a institution forcing conformity in the name of diversity is not the astute Mr. Will, but those whose bigotry in supporting one or another current popular belief allows them to support the sacrifice liberty of association.

Salt Lake City, UT

If Mr. Will were bemoaning taxpayer-funded organizations inability to discriminate against Mormons, would you still agree with him?

Salt Lake City, UT

Diversity needs to be enforced....

because people do not accept diversity.

When people START accepting diveristy, as they claim they do, there would be no issue.

Did the gay student engage in any illegal activity?
Are members who eat meat on friday, have sex outside of marriage, punished under the same guidelines?

I doubt it.

As such: Double. Standard.

Very simple.

Mark l

There is nothing in this piece about funding. This is only about the right to associate with people you choose. Private individuals can hang out with whoever they want. If I don't want to be around people with red hair that is my business. I can still be civil in my other dealings throughout the day. My choice might not be rational but freedom allows me to make irrational decisions. If I commit a crime then the law can prosecute me for that, but allow me my freedom of thoughts. Let's avoid thought crime.

Salt Lake City, UT

'I can still be civil in my other dealings throughout the day. My choice might not be rational but freedom allows me to make irrational decisions.' - Mark l | 9:38 a.m. Nov. 3, 2011

And that irrational choice ends with...


In a room of 'redheads' YOU can leave...

they, another person, is under no obligation to go anywhere because of your admited irrational bias.

Because you only, have control over, yourself.

Not, other people.



Your statement, "in a room full of redheads, you can leave," is hypocritical to your daily contentions.

Try this on. In a room full of heterosexuals, You (assuming you're gay)can leave. So it seems it alright for you to discriminate against anyone you feel is deserving of such, as long as it isn't an individual or group you support?

Funding is the issue in the frat deal. No public funding, the right to associate trumps all. Public or university funding and the fundor trumps all. In either case, your freedom of association opinion is suspect.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

@Furry1993 | 7:12 a.m. Nov. 3, 2011
Clearfield, UT
George Will apparently doesn't get it. If the organization is a private organization, with no support from public funds, it can discriminate all it wants for whatever reason it chooses. But, however, if the organization receives public support, it has to follow the non-discrimination rules of the provider of that public support. That shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp.



I wonder if George Wills outrage would support the public funding for another religous organizations.

Let's try a like experiment, shall we --

the Muslim Brotherhood
[not to exclude any Christian organizations]
the Aryan Brotherhood [aka, The Church of Jesus Christ-Christian].

I support the freedom they have to say and believe whatever garbage they wish --
but I wouldn't want a dime of my taxes supporting them.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Seems to me there was a big to do, when some students wanted to associate as a "Gay Club" within a school here in Utah?

Enforcing conformity to religious standards in the secular world is exactly what the founders fought against.

To Counter Intelligence: I am always fascinated how conservatives campaign under the guise of Freedom of Choice, then immediately works to eliminate freedom and choice that happen to disagree with their religious beliefs or their corporate contributers demands.

Silver Spring, MD

Furry, LDs Liberal: See Hellooo's comment above.

By your logic, an exclusive church group could not hold a picnic in a public park, because the park is publicly funded. So you would withhold your dime from that?
Excluding religion from the public square was far from the Founding Fathers's intent. The First Amendment was written more to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

What is the "end game" for the gay rights activists?

At what point will they be satisfied that Americans have "bowed down" sufficiently, that Americans have accepted their claim that either God does not exist or that God's laws have no bearing on personal conduct, that they have the right to dictate to America who is to be hired, regardless of conduct or offensive public behavior, that they make the rules for America and that the role of Americans is to fall into line and accept them as our role models and our rule makers?

Just what is the "end game"?

Huntsville, UT

@Mike Richards:

End Game: Equal treatment under the law. Pretty easy to understand.


GLBT clubs accepting public funds do NOT exclude anybody.
Christian clubs accepting funds DO exclude certain people.

Hence the problem.

What was it you didn't understand about Spring's comment?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

@ Ranch,

You and I do not agree on the most basic definition of words. When most people were offended when less than three percent of Americans wanted sodomy to be acceptable, those who practiced sodomy decided to change the meaning of the word "marriage" to include unions where sodomy was practiced.

When most people where alarmed that those who practiced sodomy wanted to adopt children and raise them in an environment where sodomy was not only accepted, but practiced, gay activists demanded that children in grade schools be taught that homosexuality is a normal way for people to express their sexual urges, i.e. the childrens' book "Heather has Two Mommies" - targeted at the most innocent members of society.

When most people were offended by naked men and naked women marching in "gay parades", gay activists made sure that their actions were protected and that extra penalties were applied to anyone who objected to their "in your face" obscene conduct.

When most people know that "rights" and the choice to live a gay lifestyle have nothing in common, gay activists are now trying to redefine the word, "rights".

The camel has almost taken over the tent.

Brigham City, UT

People have a right to smoke and we pay the health care bill for them----- rights can be deadly. If someone gets sick and goes to the hospital with no insurance---we pay the health care bill for them. If the family falls apart....you get where I'm going---society pays the bill. Our actions affect others. Two million in prison in our country and how many homeless...society pays the bill.

Salt Lake City, UT

'His point was that a person has the right to associate with people of their choice and shouldnt be forced to accept a person into a leadership position because we are all EQUAL...' - Freedom under Attack | 1:56 p.m. Nov. 3, 2011

*Survey shows some LGBT residents dont feel safe By Rosemary Winters SL Tribune 07/12/10
'A gay man arrested for kidnapping after being severely beaten by his neighbors.'

So where is the equal...


'The camel has almost taken over the tent.' - Mike Richards | 3:48 p.m. Nov. 3, 2011

Your 'camel' are Americans.

Why the comparison to animals?

'Our actions affect others.' - christoph | 4:08 p.m. Nov. 3, 2011

So, where is the EVIDENCE that LGBT affect...


*'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate.' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09

''Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state...'

Made-up liberal nonsense?

Not so much.

This data was collected from the 'National Center for Vital Statistics.'

Good day.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

What is really sad is when someone like mike believes that Sex is the central theme of a relationship and visualizes it whenever he see same sex couples. I don't think I've seen the word sodomy used so many times in one comment in the Deseret News.

I tend to believe that Love is what makes a relationship Not a physical act that defines it.

Try visualizing Love mike.

Christoph, are you suggesting we allow clergy to decide our laws? Cause I think that is what this argument is about.
The republicans are fighting hard to tear our Society apart because they know that Society is a democratic secret word for socialism.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments